ORDER : 1. Petitioner challenges the order dated 05.08.2013, by which his application for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected. He prays for mandamus to grant appointment to the petitioner. 2. The facts, as pleaded by the petitioner in the writ application are as follows:- Petitioner’s father Rajkishore Nonia was an employee of CCL, so was his mother Nepuri Kamin. Nepuri Kamin took voluntary retirement and in his place, brother of this petitioner Ramesh Nonia got employment. Petitioner’s father died on 26.10.2002 leaving behind this petitioner and other three brothers. In paragraph 6(c), petitioner has specifically stated that the petitioner had submitted an application before the Personel Manager on 28.05.2003. It has been further submitted that in the meantime, Kameshwar Nonia, the brother also died. In paragraph 6(e), petitioner submits that the petitioner was informed that the case of the petitioner was of double employment, hence, his claim cannot be considered. A notification was issued on 16.04.2008 by the Central Coalfields Limited doing away with the embargo of double employment. Thus, the petitioner claims that he filed a fresh application on 06.12.2008 for grant of compassionate appointment. The same was rejected by the impugned order. 3. From the aforesaid pleadings, the petitioner gave an impression before this Court that the petitioner applied on 28.05.2003 and as one of his brother was in employment, he was given an impression that his case will not be considered as this is a case of double employment. After issuance of circular lifting the embargo of double employment, petitioner applied afresh, which was rejected. This was also the argument of the counsel for the petitioner. 4. When, I go through the counter affidavit, I find that the facts of the case are not the same as have been pleaded by the petitioner. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have stated that after the death of the father on 26.10.2002, it is one Kameshwar Nonia, who submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 12.06.2003. This application is brought on record as Annexure ‘C’. This is the same application, which is at Annexure 2 to the writ application. The Annexure 2 to the writ application is written by Kameshwar Nonia, son of the deceased employee, but, in the pleadings at paragraph 6(c) of the writ application, petitioner has stated that it is the petitioner, who had filed the application. This is the same application, which is at Annexure 2 to the writ application. The Annexure 2 to the writ application is written by Kameshwar Nonia, son of the deceased employee, but, in the pleadings at paragraph 6(c) of the writ application, petitioner has stated that it is the petitioner, who had filed the application. Thus a wrong fact has been pleaded by the petitioner. Further, I find that during consideration of the case of appointment of Kameshwar Nonia, said Kameshwar Nonia died on 06.07.2008. After his death, petitioner has filed an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 03.01.2009. I find that the application for compassionate appointment filed by this petitioner is after more than six years from the date of death of the employee. The petitioner files this application for compassionate appointment, only after the death of his brother. The death of the brother cannot be a cause of action for the petitioner to file this writ application for compassionate appointment nor the grant of compassionate appointment is inheritable right, which can be inherited by the petitioner after the death of his brother. Further, more than 16 years have elapsed from the date of death of the deceased. Due to lapse of 16 years, there is no necessity for grant of compassionate appointment as the family has overcome the immediate financial crises. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal versus State of Haryana reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138 has held that the whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. Further, in the case of Santosh Kumar Dubey versus State of U.P. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 481 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the family could survive and successfully faced and overcame the financial difficulties that they faced on missing of the earning member, this is not a fit case for exercise of our jurisdiction. 5. Further, I find that the impugned order is dated 05.08.2013, which has been challenged on 17.11.2017, i.e., after four years. This delay is not properly explained. The petitioner tries to impress this Court that he filed an appeal against the said order, but, there is no provision of appeal. By referring to Annexure 9, he submits that his appeal is pending. This delay is not properly explained. The petitioner tries to impress this Court that he filed an appeal against the said order, but, there is no provision of appeal. By referring to Annexure 9, he submits that his appeal is pending. When I go through the Annexure to the writ application, I find that there is no endorsement of receipt on the said document. Further, there is no provision of an appeal. Thus, this document cannot be taken into consideration. Thus, I find that there is unexplained delay in approaching this Court also. 6. Thus, in cumulative effect, I find no merit in this writ application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.